@evnidetr because there is no impact in the video. I can't be hypnotized into seeing something that isn't there. and when did I personally attack you?
@evnidetr It isn't. you're point of view is too narrow. There is a lot of EVIDENCE for the moon missions such as Moon Rocks brought back and Reflective Mirrors placed on the moon. As well as Moon footage. In this footage the LCROSS rocket either did not lunch at the moon due to mathematical errors too make impact or they lost it and are too embarrassed too admit it. They lost equipment before. OR there was no LCROSS rocket and they just made it up too get some of the American peoples money.
@evnidetr I ran out of space so this is part too of my comment. Too answer your question Yes I believe NASA put men on the moon. Although it is still none of your business what I believe. And if you think I am contradicting myself because I didn't see them on the moon we do have pictures. I don't KNOW that we went too the moon but I believe we did.
@evnidetr oh here we go again. Why would you think I don't know what the Electromagnetic spectrum is? You claimed I wouldn't believe in radiation in general because I can't see it. The point is that I can see at least some radiation so there for I believe it.
You're putting too much emphasis on once sentence when the key term is Empirical. Look there is NOTHING in that NASA video! Why are you so hung up on making me see something that isn't there? Why do you care what i believe in?
@evnidetr Hahahaha I can't believe someone would ever call me close minded. Empirical means observation and experimentation or Seeing and experiencing. I experience gravity, and air. Light is radiation and since I can see light I don't know why you used that as an example. I am far more open to considering more ideas then you ever will. Not believing something that you can't see is healthy skepticism. However believing NASA without any evidence is NOT Science at all!
@evnidetr Well I am sorry if I made you feel insulted. However you can't get me too see something that wasn't there! I don't believe in things if I can't see them. That's not what Science is. Science is Empirical.
@evnidetr Do you think I'm an idiot? You would have been able too see it with a good enough telescope. A rocket crashing into a dark crater would have made a flash that you would have been able too see from the satellite. The plum was supposed too be 6 miles high! I saw the live footage! It did not go as planned. Stop covering for NASA! What kind of NWO trash are you?
@evnidetr The missile was already being used for other missions? Like what? And second why is this of interests too the people. Who cares if there is water on the moon if we aren't going to live there!
NOTHING impacted in the video live news feed. This mission ended in Failure.
@evnidetr This is a waste of money SO WHAT IF THERE IS WATER VAPOR ON THE MOON! We are not going to live on the moon! It wouldn't be comfortable! Hey Evnidetr are you thirsty? There is water vapor in the dirt outside have at it.
79 BILLION dollars for this shit! America needs that money! We can't live on the moon and we need to spend our money on living on Earth! Not spending billions just so you can say (there is water on the moon, dur). This mission ended in failure! I'm not an idiot.
What rats do in a case of emergancy ? Run away from disaster. Maybe the elite is trying to make a safe place on the moon because there is something "bad" is going to hapend here...who knows...
The Lcross Mission used light frequency from the impact to gauge the amount of water ice locked up under the surface. This mission proves that science can be conducted at a resonable price tag roboticaly, rather than expensivly sending astronauts...
lol a waste of money?.....They got the data they wanted....Not to get a light show. They have so much data it will take them weeks maybe months to go over it. You do not have to go there.... Junk Science,.......You sir are an idiot. Again they got the data they were after the mission was flawless in that aspect. Just because it didnt EXPLODE into a nuclear size plume doesnt mean squat. Leave religion out of Science or leave YOURSELF out of Science.
So flawless means getting no visible plume? That was the mission, right? Was it just to hit the target, for $79,000,000 dollars. Then it really doesn't matter if they didn't see any dust and ice plume? So what data did they really get? Then everybody that disagrees with you is an idiot. That isn't likely to lead to a civilized society. It wasn't supposed to be a nuclear size plume. It was supposed to produce a 'visible' plume, that's what the mission was supposed to be about! Science+God= Right.
The ones who promoted the plume was the NASA pr dept. the Director even said that. They got what they went for....They got the required data. No the plume was not what it was all about. It raised a plume just not a visible one. It will take months to pour over this data. We have been slamming the moon with objects since the 60's...Why is it only now that people have a problem with it?....lol Seriously...
The required data was supposed to come from the 'visible' plume, was it not? What data could you get from seeing nothing? How do you know that it raised a plume if it can't even be seen or observed? That was the mission according to NASA. It was expected to kick up a plume of lunar debris some six miles high and yes, be visible! That was the mission, so then at the least, NASA has a PR dept. problem, right?
lol well all companies have a pr problem, but they did get the data they wanted. While it did not raise a plume as high as they would have liked they did get the data they were looking for. Whats in that data has yet to be seen.
Let me ask you Sir. Conspiracy Theory...If this is all a hoax....What were they really doing on the moon?
At what part did I say it was a conspiracy or a hoax? No, that's not what I'm saying at all! Those are your words, not mine. I'm just saying that there has got to be a better way. It would be great if they do find water on the moon. The Phoenix Mars Lander did find water-ice on the planet Mars, it took a lander to scoop up the soil and put it in an oven, remember? Do all companies really have a PR problem, you think? Anyway, space exploration is the future of mankind! Have a nice day!
Thats the way you made it sound so I apologize for that. We cant compare the Mars missions with LCROSS price wise. There is also another aspect to this with the crater. They want to see how craters "decompose" for lack of a better term due to other impacts covering it with dust, and the crater walls slumping. This is known as gardening. Popular to some peoples beliefs (not yours) NASA does involved other aspects when it comes to missions. cont.....
You also say that we can't compare the Mars missions with the LCROSS price wise. Then how can you compare the Cassini Mission to the LCROSS mission price wise? Is that also not being contradictory, too? Then you also have just beliefs, yours! Is this not correct?
The missions are different...Different cameras, different instruments, different computers right down to the fuel they use. Each has an impact in the cost of the mission. With this i bid you good night sir...Im starting to see 3 monitors, and need some sleep...lol. Enjoy :)
...For example the Cassini Mission to Saturn. The main reason was to find out what was under the clouds on Titan, but they also used it to study Saturn itself, and it did so well they extended it another 2 years I believe it was? So this is why I dont think anything NASA does is a waste or failure. If it blows up on the launch pad then I would say its a waste of money. Other than that each mission has multiple objectives. This one had 3 one of which that did not live up to expectations.
Cassini was like this in the aspect that it was 2 crafts The Cassini Obiter, and The Huygens Probe. The Huygens Probe was dropped into Titans atmosphere, and parachuted to the surface (if you haven't seen those photos you should), While the Cassini Orbiter went to Saturn where it was/is collecting data on Saturn, and when its finished it will be sent crashing into Saturn.
So, the Cassini Orbiter will only crash into Saturn after it's mission is completed, right? It's not actually part of the mission and the craft will not be collecting anymore data when it does crash or fall out of orbit? The Huygens Probe was parachuted into Titan's atmosphere and it didn't really crash or violently hit Titan did it? Tell me in any instance if crashing into planets or other objects with great force has lead to discoveries in space, please, at any time!
Will it be crashed into Saturn on purpose or because of a decaying orbit? Is that a part of the mission purpose, or just a byproduct? Like running out of fuel or time?
Its intentional yes....I think they said they decided they didn't want to have it float aimlessly through space when it runs out of fuel, and they didn't want to crash it into a moon in case there is life. So they decided it best to crash it into Saturn so it can burn up harmlessly.
Then it's not part of the mission as far as getting anymore data when it might finally crash into Saturn. Isn't the planet Saturn a gas giant, without an actual surface? How will it burn up unless it has an atmosphere like Earth? Does Saturn have a solid core or any land masses to crash into?
Well technically yes it is part because it was planned from the beginning. Also while Saturn has no solid surface, and what is believed to be an icy/rocky core. The outermost part of Saturn is Hydrogen. While it doesnt have an Atmosphere like Earth it does have one.
Is there any solid, concrete evidence whatsoever to back up your claim of Saturn having a solid icy/rocky core, when no craft has ever been there and no telescope has ever peered or seen the inside of Saturn? What proof is there that gas giants have a solid core or is that only a theory at the present time! I would refute that assertation without solid data! If you could please tell me the exact scientific reference, because I'm doubtful of that statement. I see no idiots here!
they aren't positive that it has a icy/rocky core. The deeper you go into a planet the more the pressure builds. So idk if the same can be said for Saturn as for Jupiter but the deeper you go the more pressure builds, and it compresses the Hydrogen into a liquid metallic hydrogen state. So Im pretty sure the same can be said for Saturn as for their evidence of the icy/rocky core im honestly not sure, and wouldnt want to speculate.
Then you are being somewhat contradictory, are you not? You say, "they didn't want it to crash into a moon in case there is life." That's a total contradiction in some kind of way to saying it's okay or good to crash into the Earth's moon but, not into any other moon in case there is life. That makes no sense!
So it's a bargain no matter what they find? Should they not keep bombing the moon then, until they find water-ice? Was this not just a one-shot thing?
They are messing with things that they have no reason to mess with. There are so many questions to this mission that go left unanswered Great video I just made a moon animation too...figures I should have known you would have done something about this...geez what was I thinking :)
This has been flagged as spam show
NO MAN HAS EVER BEEN ON THE MOON
watch?v=BnKlHgDBjUI
NASAHOAX 11 months ago
@evnidetr because there is no impact in the video. I can't be hypnotized into seeing something that isn't there. and when did I personally attack you?
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr It isn't. you're point of view is too narrow. There is a lot of EVIDENCE for the moon missions such as Moon Rocks brought back and Reflective Mirrors placed on the moon. As well as Moon footage. In this footage the LCROSS rocket either did not lunch at the moon due to mathematical errors too make impact or they lost it and are too embarrassed too admit it. They lost equipment before. OR there was no LCROSS rocket and they just made it up too get some of the American peoples money.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr I ran out of space so this is part too of my comment. Too answer your question Yes I believe NASA put men on the moon. Although it is still none of your business what I believe. And if you think I am contradicting myself because I didn't see them on the moon we do have pictures. I don't KNOW that we went too the moon but I believe we did.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr oh here we go again. Why would you think I don't know what the Electromagnetic spectrum is? You claimed I wouldn't believe in radiation in general because I can't see it. The point is that I can see at least some radiation so there for I believe it.
You're putting too much emphasis on once sentence when the key term is Empirical. Look there is NOTHING in that NASA video! Why are you so hung up on making me see something that isn't there? Why do you care what i believe in?
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr Hahahaha I can't believe someone would ever call me close minded. Empirical means observation and experimentation or Seeing and experiencing. I experience gravity, and air. Light is radiation and since I can see light I don't know why you used that as an example. I am far more open to considering more ideas then you ever will. Not believing something that you can't see is healthy skepticism. However believing NASA without any evidence is NOT Science at all!
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr Well I am sorry if I made you feel insulted. However you can't get me too see something that wasn't there! I don't believe in things if I can't see them. That's not what Science is. Science is Empirical.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr Do you think I'm an idiot? You would have been able too see it with a good enough telescope. A rocket crashing into a dark crater would have made a flash that you would have been able too see from the satellite. The plum was supposed too be 6 miles high! I saw the live footage! It did not go as planned. Stop covering for NASA! What kind of NWO trash are you?
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr The missile was already being used for other missions? Like what? And second why is this of interests too the people. Who cares if there is water on the moon if we aren't going to live there!
NOTHING impacted in the video live news feed. This mission ended in Failure.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
@evnidetr This is a waste of money SO WHAT IF THERE IS WATER VAPOR ON THE MOON! We are not going to live on the moon! It wouldn't be comfortable! Hey Evnidetr are you thirsty? There is water vapor in the dirt outside have at it.
79 BILLION dollars for this shit! America needs that money! We can't live on the moon and we need to spend our money on living on Earth! Not spending billions just so you can say (there is water on the moon, dur). This mission ended in failure! I'm not an idiot.
wavepsychic 1 year ago
Is this Dr. Light?
wavepsychic 1 year ago
Yep,could of fed somebody!
semiLivedj 1 year ago
@evnidetr So are your answers, and even more so that mission. Not much data that is useful for anything much and that must be the whole point.
jimbonumber9 1 year ago
@evnidetr What are the practical uses for the data that was obtained?
jimbonumber9 1 year ago
@evnidetr When will this further testing resume? So, this data may be useful sometime in the future, perhaps?
jimbonumber9 1 year ago
@evnidetr So, now what possible use be for the data? Perhaps, at some future time?
jimbonumber9 1 year ago
Solid proof that we never went to the moon
JosephKrammer 1 year ago
What rats do in a case of emergancy ? Run away from disaster. Maybe the elite is trying to make a safe place on the moon because there is something "bad" is going to hapend here...who knows...
niettevragen 2 years ago
This guy sounds like an Asian or Native American Johnny Cash.
tomster6991 2 years ago 2
The Lcross Mission used light frequency from the impact to gauge the amount of water ice locked up under the surface. This mission proves that science can be conducted at a resonable price tag roboticaly, rather than expensivly sending astronauts...
johndroot 2 years ago
i think you just want to see the moon blow up...me to
Helghast4000 2 years ago
Great vid God Bless
truthteller1967 2 years ago 3
Why did you delete my comment?
JWDaly08 2 years ago
Which one?
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
useless scientists, they should be send to bath fishes Siberia or Alaska or cut ice to make ice cream. they'll gonna get fired.
AdolfoHaggen 2 years ago
I think this litle light is not enough for a spectrogram, this experiment is a really fiasco, if an astronomer read me, tell me, is it enough????
AdolfoHaggen 2 years ago
Good question!
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
lol a waste of money?.....They got the data they wanted....Not to get a light show. They have so much data it will take them weeks maybe months to go over it. You do not have to go there.... Junk Science,.......You sir are an idiot. Again they got the data they were after the mission was flawless in that aspect. Just because it didnt EXPLODE into a nuclear size plume doesnt mean squat. Leave religion out of Science or leave YOURSELF out of Science.
Dt0x75 2 years ago
So flawless means getting no visible plume? That was the mission, right? Was it just to hit the target, for $79,000,000 dollars. Then it really doesn't matter if they didn't see any dust and ice plume? So what data did they really get? Then everybody that disagrees with you is an idiot. That isn't likely to lead to a civilized society. It wasn't supposed to be a nuclear size plume. It was supposed to produce a 'visible' plume, that's what the mission was supposed to be about! Science+God= Right.
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
The ones who promoted the plume was the NASA pr dept. the Director even said that. They got what they went for....They got the required data. No the plume was not what it was all about. It raised a plume just not a visible one. It will take months to pour over this data. We have been slamming the moon with objects since the 60's...Why is it only now that people have a problem with it?....lol Seriously...
Dt0x75 2 years ago
The required data was supposed to come from the 'visible' plume, was it not? What data could you get from seeing nothing? How do you know that it raised a plume if it can't even be seen or observed? That was the mission according to NASA. It was expected to kick up a plume of lunar debris some six miles high and yes, be visible! That was the mission, so then at the least, NASA has a PR dept. problem, right?
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
lol well all companies have a pr problem, but they did get the data they wanted. While it did not raise a plume as high as they would have liked they did get the data they were looking for. Whats in that data has yet to be seen.
Let me ask you Sir. Conspiracy Theory...If this is all a hoax....What were they really doing on the moon?
This answer should be good. :)
Dt0x75 2 years ago
At what part did I say it was a conspiracy or a hoax? No, that's not what I'm saying at all! Those are your words, not mine. I'm just saying that there has got to be a better way. It would be great if they do find water on the moon. The Phoenix Mars Lander did find water-ice on the planet Mars, it took a lander to scoop up the soil and put it in an oven, remember? Do all companies really have a PR problem, you think? Anyway, space exploration is the future of mankind! Have a nice day!
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
Thats the way you made it sound so I apologize for that. We cant compare the Mars missions with LCROSS price wise. There is also another aspect to this with the crater. They want to see how craters "decompose" for lack of a better term due to other impacts covering it with dust, and the crater walls slumping. This is known as gardening. Popular to some peoples beliefs (not yours) NASA does involved other aspects when it comes to missions. cont.....
Dt0x75 2 years ago
You also say that we can't compare the Mars missions with the LCROSS price wise. Then how can you compare the Cassini Mission to the LCROSS mission price wise? Is that also not being contradictory, too? Then you also have just beliefs, yours! Is this not correct?
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
The missions are different...Different cameras, different instruments, different computers right down to the fuel they use. Each has an impact in the cost of the mission. With this i bid you good night sir...Im starting to see 3 monitors, and need some sleep...lol. Enjoy :)
Dt0x75 2 years ago
Still, you contradict yourself, seriously. Take care then and have a nice day!
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
...For example the Cassini Mission to Saturn. The main reason was to find out what was under the clouds on Titan, but they also used it to study Saturn itself, and it did so well they extended it another 2 years I believe it was? So this is why I dont think anything NASA does is a waste or failure. If it blows up on the launch pad then I would say its a waste of money. Other than that each mission has multiple objectives. This one had 3 one of which that did not live up to expectations.
Dt0x75 2 years ago
So did the Cassini Mission involve crashing into Titan or Saturn?
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
Cassini was like this in the aspect that it was 2 crafts The Cassini Obiter, and The Huygens Probe. The Huygens Probe was dropped into Titans atmosphere, and parachuted to the surface (if you haven't seen those photos you should), While the Cassini Orbiter went to Saturn where it was/is collecting data on Saturn, and when its finished it will be sent crashing into Saturn.
Dt0x75 2 years ago
Orbiter*
Dt0x75 2 years ago
So, the Cassini Orbiter will only crash into Saturn after it's mission is completed, right? It's not actually part of the mission and the craft will not be collecting anymore data when it does crash or fall out of orbit? The Huygens Probe was parachuted into Titan's atmosphere and it didn't really crash or violently hit Titan did it? Tell me in any instance if crashing into planets or other objects with great force has lead to discoveries in space, please, at any time!
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
So in short to answer your question....Yes it will be crashed into Saturn....lol
Dt0x75 2 years ago
Will it be crashed into Saturn on purpose or because of a decaying orbit? Is that a part of the mission purpose, or just a byproduct? Like running out of fuel or time?
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
Its intentional yes....I think they said they decided they didn't want to have it float aimlessly through space when it runs out of fuel, and they didn't want to crash it into a moon in case there is life. So they decided it best to crash it into Saturn so it can burn up harmlessly.
Dt0x75 2 years ago
Then it's not part of the mission as far as getting anymore data when it might finally crash into Saturn. Isn't the planet Saturn a gas giant, without an actual surface? How will it burn up unless it has an atmosphere like Earth? Does Saturn have a solid core or any land masses to crash into?
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
Well technically yes it is part because it was planned from the beginning. Also while Saturn has no solid surface, and what is believed to be an icy/rocky core. The outermost part of Saturn is Hydrogen. While it doesnt have an Atmosphere like Earth it does have one.
Dt0x75 2 years ago
Is there any solid, concrete evidence whatsoever to back up your claim of Saturn having a solid icy/rocky core, when no craft has ever been there and no telescope has ever peered or seen the inside of Saturn? What proof is there that gas giants have a solid core or is that only a theory at the present time! I would refute that assertation without solid data! If you could please tell me the exact scientific reference, because I'm doubtful of that statement. I see no idiots here!
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
they aren't positive that it has a icy/rocky core. The deeper you go into a planet the more the pressure builds. So idk if the same can be said for Saturn as for Jupiter but the deeper you go the more pressure builds, and it compresses the Hydrogen into a liquid metallic hydrogen state. So Im pretty sure the same can be said for Saturn as for their evidence of the icy/rocky core im honestly not sure, and wouldnt want to speculate.
Dt0x75 2 years ago
Then you are being somewhat contradictory, are you not? You say, "they didn't want it to crash into a moon in case there is life." That's a total contradiction in some kind of way to saying it's okay or good to crash into the Earth's moon but, not into any other moon in case there is life. That makes no sense!
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
LCROSS: $79 million
Humans going there: >$79 billion
It was a bargain, and the results of the data analysis WILL be important to planning for eventual human presence.
osmium2 2 years ago
So it's a bargain no matter what they find? Should they not keep bombing the moon then, until they find water-ice? Was this not just a one-shot thing?
jimbonumber9 2 years ago
They are messing with things that they have no reason to mess with. There are so many questions to this mission that go left unanswered Great video I just made a moon animation too...figures I should have known you would have done something about this...geez what was I thinking :)
ragged07 2 years ago
I totally agree.
mrgoodvibrations 2 years ago